Sarah Palin: Creationist

[Cabal]

Well, technically, Russia (or China) could insist the same thing. However, this is one of the reasons why I am strongly strongly in favor of Obama over McCain.

True, it's not just the US who could precipitate this crisis....

But Russia wasn't half as p-ed off until after Poland and the US signed on the missile shield....

And before that they were still flying bombers around the waters north of Britain.

Ah well....Go Obama! I can't vote, but I can hope.

 

[Chalnoth]

True, it's not just the US who could precipitate this crisis....

But Russia wasn't half as p-ed off until after Poland and the US signed on the missile shield....

And before that they were still flying bombers around the waters north of Britain.

Ah well....Go Obama! I can't vote, but I can hope.

True. Earlier, I didn't really understand why they'd be upset about missile defense. I thought it was a rather silly idea that we shouldn't pursue something like that.

But deployment in Poland? Now that I think about that, it just seems downright asinine. We should have no reason whatsoever right now to posture military assets opposite Russia. Even posturing defensive equipment is a provocative act, because it indicates that we may wish to invade Russia. I might, we might have had a leg to stand on if we placed them in/around the Middle East, or with Japan. But placing them in Poland is just being unnecessarily provocative.

 

[Cabal]

True. Earlier, I didn't really understand why they'd be upset about missile defense. I thought it was a rather silly idea that we shouldn't pursue something like that.

But deployment in Poland? Now that I think about that, it just seems downright asinine. We should have no reason whatsoever right now to posture military assets opposite Russia. Even posturing defensive equipment is a provocative act, because it indicates that we may wish to invade Russia. I might, we might have had a leg to stand on if we placed them in/around the Middle East, or with Japan. But placing them in Poland is just being unnecessarily provocative.

I think the story is it's to defend against "Iranian nuclear weapons." And yet they rejected a Russo-US cooperative missile shield deployment. In Azerbaijan. Actually near Iran.

And Russia supplies the EU with 20% of its natural gas. Is the US going to foot the bill when they pull the plug? (because it's not like Gazprom hasn't done this before....)

Anyway, I'll stop ranting.

But srsly u guys, elect Obama.

 

[Chalnoth]

I think the story is it's to defend against "Iranian nuclear weapons." And yet they rejected a Russo-US cooperative missile shield deployment. In Azerbaijan. Actually near Iran.

Just so we're clear, who proposed this, and who rejected it? I hadn't heard of this.

 

[Cabal]

Just so we're clear, who proposed this, and who rejected it? I hadn't heard of this.

Putin proposed it. Bush insisted it be based in NATO territory. Putin then threatened to turn Kaliningrad into a missile base to defend Russian interests (after suggesting building cooperative early warning systems and defences). And this was last year, before the deal was signed, since then they've been making veiled threats about nuking Poland.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2028710.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1905689.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2648440.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4543744.ece


(Sorry, I read the Times a lot...)

 

[Chalnoth]

Putin proposed it. Bush insisted it be based in NATO territory. Putin then threatened to turn Kaliningrad into a missile base to defend Russian interests (after suggesting building cooperative early warning systems and defences). And this was last year, before the deal was signed, since then they've been making veiled threats about nuking Poland.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2028710.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1905689.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2648440.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4543744.ece


(Sorry, I read the Times a lot...)

Ugh, revolting. On both sides. Sure, Bush is being an ass. But Putin really doesn't have any reason to be an ass right back.

 

[Cabal]

Ugh, revolting. On both sides. Sure, Bush is being an ass. But Putin really doesn't have any reason to be an ass right back.

True, but it is in their backyard, and I don't think it was altogether unexpected that they were going to react this way (for right or wrong).

But yeah, really not good. Hopefully they're just on a high after Georgia.....

 

[Bombila]

Well, interestingly enough, the plug has just been pulled on our Canadian Conservative minority government. Unlike the US, we don't spend much time campaigning - federal election is set for October 14. The Liberals are somewhat in disarray, the NDP is not a winner (always a bridesmaid...), and the Greens just drag everybody on the left down. So another minority gov. in the wings.

Canadians, even the majority of those who voted him in, don't much like the most conservative ideas Steven Harper has, and it is just possible that a good long look at Sarah Palin and her not-so-healthy running mate over the next while will scare a few more people into voting for the Liberals. I'm predicting a minority Liberal government.

So, like a butterfly causing a hurricane, Sarah P, by being an outrageous creationist rapture lovin', book-banning, gun-totin' Republican nightmare, may be inadvertently the cause of a Liberal government in Canada. I'm only half joking about that.

 

[Technocrat2010]

Ugh... not the stupid wedgie.

 

[RTooty]

Here we are talking about public education and yet how long is it going to be around. Here's whats going to happen in the near but distant future:
1. Public school system fails (already there in most areas)
2. State government allows parents to choose where to send their kids to school by providing vouchers (money)
3. Parents sends kids to faith based school
4. Evil Creationism myth gets passed on to future generations

 

[Chalnoth]

Here we are talking about public education and yet how long is it going to be around. Here's whats going to happen in the near but distant future:
1. Public school system fails (already there in most areas)
2. State government allows parents to choose where to send their kids to school by providing vouchers (money)
3. Parents sends kids to faith based school
4. Evil Creationism myth gets passed on to future generations

Creationism isn't evil. It's merely incorrect. How can we possibly hope to compete in science and technology if we're teaching our kids incorrect stuff, and failing to teach them about modern science?

 

[Blackrend]

Here we are talking about public education and yet how long is it going to be around. Here's whats going to happen in the near but distant future:
1. Public school system fails (already there in most areas)
2. State government allows parents to choose where to send their kids to school by providing vouchers (money)
3. Parents sends kids to faith based school
4. Evil Creationism myth gets passed on to future generations

As long as there are people with scientific minds around, Creationism will not be taught in schools.

We don't see it as 'evil', it's just been proven wrong time and time again. We want our kids reading the most up-to-date, scientifically accurate material, and the bible is most definitely NOT a scientific textbook. Why would we teach our children things that aren't backed up by evidence?

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Here's whats going to happen in the near but distant future:

Am I the only one who went "LOL WHAT!?" ?

 

[Blackrend]

Am I the only one who went "LOL WHAT!?" ?

Give him the pear.

Also I <3 your sig. Pure win.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Give him the pear.

Also I <3 your sig. Pure win.

I prefer this one...

 

[Split Rock]

Here we are talking about public education and yet how long is it going to be around. Here's whats going to happen in the near but distant future:
1. Public school system fails (already there in most areas)
2. State government allows parents to choose where to send their kids to school by providing vouchers (money)
3. Parents sends kids to faith based school
4. Evil Creationism myth gets passed on to future generations

Does this happen before or after The Rapture?

 

[RTooty]

Creationism isn't evil. It's merely incorrect. How can we possibly hope to compete in science and technology if we're teaching our kids incorrect stuff, and failing to teach them about modern science?

Thank you for stating that creationism isn't evil. Although, a lot of your counterparts would disagree. I'm not saying that evolution is evil. In fact, I.D. allows for evolution of one species to another. The only difference is we don't try to plug the holes in with data that suites our desire to eliminate God from the equation. If you believe in evolution and you believe in God that you lean more towards ID. But the purist will say there is no God and we happen randomly are fighting an uphill battle because the data just doesn't add up.

Again, the underlying issue is do you believe in God and are you using evolution as your platform. Deep down inside every evolutionist is an atheist. If you weren't promoting your religion, than we wouldn't still be debating this topic one week after it was published. If I were to debate the topic of angels pushing as down (gravity theory) you would just blow me off. But since I am debating that God created life it you guys are in an uproar and vying to get the last word.

The saddest part is that you know what I am saying has credibility. Call it a PRATT all you want but there is a reason evolutionists make websites like expelledexposed.com websites and sue any school district that tries to speak the truth. It's because you are afraid that if students and adults receive contradicting data the veil will be removed from their eyes.

 

[Split Rock]

Thank you for stating that creationism isn't evil. Although, a lot of your counterparts would disagree.

While I do not think the rank-in-file creationist is evil, the Professional Creationists who perpetrate lies and misinformation on the internet certainly are.

I'm not saying that evolution is evil.

Thank you. To quote a popular phrase, a lot of your counterparts would disagree.

In fact, I.D. allows for evolution of one species to another.

It has very little choice, since evolution is a reality.

The only difference is we don't try to plug the holes in with data that suites our desire to eliminate God from the equation.

No, you plug holes in with "Goddidit," to suit your desire to pretend that your interpretation of scripture is "God's Innerant Word."

If you believe in evolution and you believe in God that you lean more towards ID. But the purist will say there is no God and we happen randomly are fighting an uphill battle because the data just doesn't add up.

I don't agree with this, though I will let theistic evolutionists here answer for themselves.

Again, the underlying issue is do you believe in God and are you using evolution as your platform.

No. for me, the underlying issue is the teaching of science in public schools.

Deep down inside every evolutionist is an atheist.

This is another falsehood.

If you weren't promoting your religion, than we wouldn't still be debating this topic one week after it was published. If I were to debate the topic of angels pushing as down (gravity theory) you would just blow me off. But since I am debating that God created life it you guys are in an uproar and vying to get the last word.

If Angelic Gravity proponents had the same successes in state legislatures and local school boards as creationists have had, you can be sure that I would go after their nonsense with the same fervor I do with creationists.

The saddest part is that you know what I am saying has credibility. Call it a PRATT all you want but there is a reason evolutionists make websites like expelledexposed.com websites and sue any school district that tries to speak the truth. It's because you are afraid that if students and adults receive contradicting data the veil will be removed from their eyes.

Please do not assume you understand what I really do believe and do not. I understand you a lot better than you understand me.

Tell us the reason that "Creation Ministry" websites far out number pro-evolution websites on the internet. Is it because creationists are afraid that if students and adults receive data that contradicts their narrow-minded interpretation of scripture that the veil will be removed from their eyes?

 

[Chalnoth]

Thank you for stating that creationism isn't evil. Although, a lot of your counterparts would disagree. I'm not saying that evolution is evil. In fact, I.D. allows for evolution of one species to another. The only difference is we don't try to plug the holes in with data that suites our desire to eliminate God from the equation. If you believe in evolution and you believe in God that you lean more towards ID. But the purist will say there is no God and we happen randomly are fighting an uphill battle because the data just doesn't add up.

Again, the underlying issue is do you believe in God and are you using evolution as your platform. Deep down inside every evolutionist is an atheist. If you weren't promoting your religion, than we wouldn't still be debating this topic one week after it was published. If I were to debate the topic of angels pushing as down (gravity theory) you would just blow me off. But since I am debating that God created life it you guys are in an uproar and vying to get the last word.

No. The underlying issue is what the evidence says. And the evidence says that all life on Earth stems from a common ancestor. All life.

The saddest part is that you know what I am saying has credibility. Call it a PRATT all you want but there is a reason evolutionists make websites like expelledexposed.com websites and sue any school district that tries to speak the truth. It's because you are afraid that if students and adults receive contradicting data the veil will be removed from their eyes.

So, let me get this straight. You think what you're saying has credibility because scientists say it's wrong? Come on! This is complete hogwash! Just because people say an idea is incorrect does not somehow mean that it has validity! It means that people think it's wrong.

Look, whether or not evolution is accurate has to do with the physical evidence, not with what any particular person or group says about it. Places like the NCSE were formed primarily to combat the bogus and asinine attacks on science by places like the Discovery Institute. If places like the Discovery Institute didn't exist, the NCSE also wouldn't exist. It'd be a non-issue: the science would merely be taught. But this isn't the case. The DI has been pushing, along with other groups, to discredit science. That's the entire purpose of what the DI is doing: make science seem unreliable through specious attacks, in order to push a specific agenda that runs quite contrary to science. Here is the document that outlines this strategy, the so-called wedge document:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

This shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that people in your position have no leg to stand on. This is entirely a political/social maneuver designed to undercut the credibility of science and pass unscientific propositions off as accurate. So no, your stance has no credibility whatsoever. And if you paid attention to the evidence you'd see that. But I see you can't argue on the evidence, and so you've abandoned that tack, as expected.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Thank you for stating that creationism isn't evil. Although, a lot of your counterparts would disagree. I'm not saying that evolution is evil. In fact, I.D. allows for evolution of one species to another. The only difference is we don't try to plug the holes in with data that suites our desire to eliminate God from the equation. If you believe in evolution and you believe in God that you lean more towards ID. But the purist will say there is no God and we happen randomly are fighting an uphill battle because the data just doesn't add up.

Again, the underlying issue is do you believe in God and are you using evolution as your platform. Deep down inside every evolutionist is an atheist. If you weren't promoting your religion, than we wouldn't still be debating this topic one week after it was published. If I were to debate the topic of angels pushing as down (gravity theory) you would just blow me off. But since I am debating that God created life it you guys are in an uproar and vying to get the last word.

The saddest part is that you know what I am saying has credibility. Call it a PRATT all you want but there is a reason evolutionists make websites like expelledexposed.com websites and sue any school district that tries to speak the truth. It's because you are afraid that if students and adults receive contradicting data the veil will be removed from their eyes.

I believe in God and i accept evolution. I accept a fully naturalistic evolution. I do not think that God has any direct role in evolution. i think he set the groundrules (laws of physics) and let it run on its own. God doesnt need to constantly have a hand in nature. after all, a perfect design doesnt need tweaking.
Evolution is ultimately a scientific theory. God is not really an issue when discussing it. It isnt any more or less a denial of God then the knowledge that lighting is static electricity and that rain comes from the hydrologic cycle. It isnt a denial of God that earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics. Much the opposite, science is discovering how God's creation works.